Sean Chittenden said on Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 08:07:51PM -0700,: > I think if I were to remove the following from the clause, "(ex: > the GNU Public License, hereafter known as the GPL)," the > discussion wouldn't have been nearly as involved. *sigh*
On the contrary, the words in parentheses only clarify the previous words. Yes, you have been very careful in drafting the license to be OSD compliant, but your craftiness makes me think of suggesting an amendment to the OSD. Few days back, we had a discussion on use of non-free interfaces to free software - and the particular example used was use of CORBA interface to a GPL'ed application. My understanding of the consensus on this list is that it is permissible, because writing an interface to a GPL'ed program does not amount to creation of a derivative work. On the other hand, the proposed OSSA license does not permit this, and is therefore, discriminatory. The infringing portion is:- 'must not be linked to software that is released with a license' ^^^^^^ If this clears the OSD, it is OSD which should be changed. The entire spirit behind the OSS movement is to prevent fragmentation of s/w, and s/w which will not interact with each other. OSSAL explicitly enables this. -- +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+ Mahesh T. Pai, LL.M., 'NANDINI', S. R. M. Road, Ernakulam, Cochin-682018, Kerala, India. http://in.geocities.com/paivakil +~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3